NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin was founder of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center--now the Rubin Center--and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.rubincenter.org.

Recent Rubin Reports

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The big, highly advertised meeting of six great powers—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States--to raise sanctions against Iran seems to have ended without any major breakthrough. According to available sources, China and Russia took such a strong stance against sanctions as to make it clear that unity on this issue--which means effective sanctions--is impossible.

This is a huge failure for a main--perhaps the main--U.S. policy in the Middle East.

It was thus with little credibility that the meeting warned Iran that it must resume talks about its nuclear program by the end of September.

“We have not heard anyone setting a specific time for talks. Interaction on the basis of respect and justice does not go with setting deadlines. Perhaps some people have made comments but it is obvious that this…is not compatible with today’s needs and Iran nation’s approach.”

Or, in other words, “No.”

So we are set for the next act: more dramatic announcements of relatively small sanctions’ actions followed by months of inaction as Tehran gets around them to some extent.

The Western powers still don’t seem to realize that whatever you can say about the Iranian regime a year or more ago, it is now a super-radical government increasingly in the hands of the most extreme faction. Some countries, including those in the meeting, still view Iran as a great opportunity for good profits.

Here's something you're going to be hearing a lot more in the future, from an article, "Limited options: Deterring North Korea and Iran by Lowell H. Schwartz in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists :

"The question today is no longer whether the U.S. can still prevent the emergence of nuclear-armed regional adversaries, but instead, how to prevent them from being empowered by their nuclear weapons.

"Deterrence of nuclear use through the threat of retaliation--a mainstay of Cold War military strategy--is highly problematic with nuclear-armed regional adversaries. The reason is simple: These leaders may believe their sole chance of surviving is brandishing or using nuclear weapons. Indeed, they might choose to abstain from nuclear use only if they felt that course would enable them and their regimes to survive intact.

"U.S. decision-makers in regional crises should seek to devise policy options that avoid putting the enemy leadership in a position where nuclear use seems to them to be the least bad option available."

But wait a minute! The first two paragraphs I understand, though they leave out a key concept--brandishing nuclear weapons is by no means merely defensive but can also be aggressive. They may brandish in order to make gains. Of course, anyone who looks at the Middle East and at Iran should understand that.

The last paragraph is positively horrifying, though. It suggests that appeasement will be the only policy available. After all, how will the United States ensure that Iran--which is a pretty paranoid regime--not feel threatened? By not asserting its own interests and making sure not to trespass on what Iran's regime defines as its interests. And Iran's regime defines as its interest: hegemony in the Middle East, the spread of radical Islamist regimes, the expulsion of Western influence from the region, and the destruction of Israel.

How can Iran be treated as a purely defense-oriented regime? True, Tehran worries about U.S. encirclement and the fall of the revolutionary government. But that's certainly not the whole story.

For a more comprehensive look at the implications of Iran having nuclear weapons, read this. The probable Western and Arab readiness to surrender to a nuclear Iran is as frightening as Iran having the weapons in the first place.